home

Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat May 28, 2005 at 11:27:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: Raw Story reports that Rep. Conyers has drafted a new letter to Rumsfeld demanding answers.

***************
This is bound to cause a stir, from the Sunday Times OnLine (UK):

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

....The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.

The numbers detailed in the report are pretty convincing. The Times says this information was obtained following the leak of the Downing Street Memo, but was contained in the same briefing paper.

The briefing paper prepared for the July meeting — the same document that revealed the prime minister’s agreement during a summit with President George W Bush in April 2002 to back military action to bring about regime change — laid out the American war plans.

....The systematic targeting of Iraqi air defences appears to contradict Foreign Office legal guidance appended to the leaked briefing paper which said that the allied aircraft were only “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.

Maybe people will pay attention to the Downing Street memo now?

As Raw Story reported yesterday, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is seeking 100,000 signatures on a petition for an investigation into the Downing Street memo. If you want to sign on, go here.

Here's the Downing Street Memo, dated July 23, 2002, from Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide, to David Manning.

< ' Last Best Chance': Hypothetical Nuclear Doomsday Film | Here It Comes Again >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War | 52 comments (52 topical)
    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    It was painful to watch in 2002-2003 how desperately the US (and the poodle) were trying to find even the tiniest pretext for a war. It's hardly surprising if they tried to provoke Saddam, then.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    et al - Okay, I read it. What does it say? Let me see. 1. The US is planning a war with Iraq. Everyone knew that. 2. The WMD information is thin, which some try to sell as "incorrect." That is incorrect in itself. Thin describes the quantity, not quality. This was the accepted view by US and other major intelligence agencies. 3. Intelligence information is being fixed around that point. Much has been made around the last point, "fixed around that point." I can't tell you what the author meant, and he is not talking. But here is a definition of "fix." "3 : to direct one's attention or efforts : FOCUS; also : DECIDE, SETTLE — usually used with on" So, the omes: "Intelligence information is being focused around that point." So, is the memo a smoking gun? Good heavens, it is not even a bent spear.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#3)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Good grief, the old partial delete trick.... So the sentence becomes: "Intelligence information is being focused around that point."

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    No offense, but we didn't need "new evidence" to tell us this, this was well-known at the time to anyone reading left-wing media (perhaps not the exact mathematical increase but certainly that there WAS a significant increase). For example, here's an article from the Sept., 2002 issue of Workers World newspaper, describing a trip made by Brian Becker and Ramsey Clark to Iraq in August of that year. Information like this WAS also in the mainstream media, but, as noted in the Workers World article, always buried in the fine print in a small article, and always justified as "self-defense". It certainly wasn't a major topic of discussion, or even a minor one, on the editorial pages, nor on the talking-head shows, and likely as not never made the broadcast media.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#5)
    by GhostDog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    So now we know what PPJim wrote and what PPJim said its meaning was. He scrupulously points out that we cannot know what the writer of the "Downing Street memo" meant by the (rather different) language that he used. But written English is meant to make it possible to understand and to make it difficult to (reasonably) misunderstand. We can at least try. Matthew Rycroft, who wrote the minutes of the meeting, wrote:
    Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
    PPJim built what he construed to be the meaning of this passage on the word "fix," which allowed him to argue that the whole memo was innocuous. But the writer of the minutes chose to build these two sentences around the pivotal word "but," with which he began his second sentence. "But" means that what follows is to be understood as distinct from, and in contradiction to, what has gone before. It means that there is a problem in the idea that precedes the word "but." (As in my previous paragraph, for example.) That is simply the way English works. Here the first idea was that Bush wanted to justify his planned invasion of Iraq by claiming that Iraq supported terrorism and had WMDs. When Rycroft began his next sentence, "But," he meant that what he was about to write would contradict what he had just written, rather than simply following in a polite chain of connected thought. (Otherwise he would have written "and.")
    But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
    "The intelligence and facts" were being fixed around the policy. The intelligence and facts. Rycroft includes the words "and facts." PPJim does not, which makes his line of argument possible. If "fixed" meant "focused" the two sentences Rycroft wrote could be rewritten more or less as what PPJim wrote: Bush meant to invade Iraq, and the intelligence was being focused on that policy. (Bush said for at least eight months past this point that he did not have any such policy and hoped to avoid invading Iraq, but PPJim claims that everyone knew Bush was lying so it doesn't count. I would disagree, but that's another argument altogether.) But facts cannot be focused on a policy as intelligence can. Again, that is just the way English works. Now, "focus" is not the primary meaning of the word "fix." The primary meaning is to fasten, to make stable or firm, or to secure one thing. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," probably means that the intelligence and facts were being glued in place around the policy rather than the policy being built around the intelligence and the facts. (Also, Rycroft wrote "fixed around." As PPJim's definition points out, a careful writer of English would have written "focused on" if "focused" was what was meant. But that same careful writer would have used the word "around" when writing about the intelligence and the facts being fastened around the policy so as to prop it up.) Whether the secret minutes are a smoking gun or not I have no idea, but I think it is possible to read them and determine what they meant. Which is not quite what PPJim said. --Dog, etc.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#6)
    by GhostDog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Not even preview mode can rescue me before coffee. For "or to secure one thing" please read "or to secure one thing to another." Sorry 'bout that. -- Dog

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Jim is such a good foot soldier for Dubya, he's going to get out in front and continue spinning this story. Those of us who were awake and paying attention during the runup to the Iraq war clearly remember the Admin's thrashing around to find an excuse for the war that would resonate with the American people. They tried "saddam had connections to Al Qaeda," they tried "Saddam tried to kill my Daddy", they tried weapons of mass destruction which finally found some traction with the fear of the American people that Dubya et al could stir up. It was clear to anyone paying attention that they were not interested in anything except war with Iraq. All the talk about last resort was so pathetic. What lies. So now it turns out that in addition to relying on one source named curveball for their intelligence on Iraq they also bombed the bejeebers out of Saddam's country hoping to provoke him to do something that would make all the rest of their machinations unnecessary, but Saddam did not oblige. The simple equation built on all these elements comes to simple solutions: high crimes and misdemeanors, war crimes, war of aggression. Impeachment and trial for these war criminals is warranted. Pinochet is getting prosecuted, anything is possible. Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Alberto, and Dubya should be next. I suppose Colin Powell also goes in the docket for his performance at the UN. I bet he regrets that day.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#8)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Ghost - The contention of the Left is that this memo is some type of smoking gun showing that Bush was cooking the intelligence books. Th sentences read: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. I previously noted that "fixed" meant "focused." The use of "But" doesn't change anything. The writer is saying what Bush is wanting to do, but the intelliegence and fact (gathering) were being focused. i.e. Not enough info, need more resources, etc. Now, if the writer had wanted to say that Bush was cooking the books, he would have written. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. And the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." "And" being the qualifier for the following statement, which would have used "fixed" as in, the baseball game is fixed.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    The US is planning a war with Iraq. Everyone knew that. Wha? ROTFLMFAO! Hey Jim. Any other history you want to rewrite?

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Keep spinning semantics. The war was contrived.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    The part of the Downing Street Memo that I cant' get over is this:
    It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.
    This memo was written during a period of time when Bush was saying that he was doing all that he could to avoid a war in Iraq. This was a lie for while he was saying this, the decision had already been made. This memo also reveals that the decision to go to war was not made because of bad intelligence. They knew "the case was thin". No American servicemen should ever be sent to war for light and transient reasons. To die for a lie is about as light and transient as you can get.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#12)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    oh well, we all knew that back in 2002, it was on the news.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    War crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors. Let him who has ears hear.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#14)
    by mpower1952 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Oh the irony! Bush's defense may depend on what the meaning of 'fix' is. lol

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    mpower1592 - No, the question is why the word "but" was used instead of "and." And the answer isw: The writer was not saying that Bush was cooking the books. Che`- If you didn't know in the summer of 02 that we were planning a war with Iraq...I don't believe you. You are too smart to have not known. TS - "Contrived?" Proof please. And don't use this memo, it doesn't do it.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Here's a view from 10/16/2002: Link. Especially the middle paragraph. Almost prophetic.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#17)
    by mpower1952 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Jim- that was just my attempt at a joke, actually. Anyway, if you say 'but' is the important word then how about this... "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." And not the other way around, ie. The policy should have been fixed around the intelligence and facts.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    This still isn't going anywhere as long as the 'cons control the House and Senate... As for Rumsfeld, Blaghdaddy's bettin' that the Defense Secretary's response will be "Fozad?" Any takers? Blagh just dropped in to wish his "TalkLeft" buddies a Happy Memorial Day weekend...Blagh's working on some other stuff this weekend, so he'll entrust the regular crew to batten down the fort until business returns to normal... Take care guys...see you on the other side... Blagh

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    john h writes - "This memo also reveals that the decision to go to war was not made because of bad intelligence. They knew "the case was thin". No, that refers to quantity, not quality. mpower1952 - My point was that the Left wants to use this as a "smoking gun" memo showing that Bush was cooking the books. "But" doesn't work in that context. If that had been the case, the writer would have used "and."

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Spinning furiously, but still unable to change the fact the memo reports that the intelligence was fixed around the policy. In my experience, it's usually best to design your policy around knowledge of a subject, but that doesn't apply in RWNJ land.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    "But" doesn't work in that context. If that had been the case, the writer would have used "and." Reminds me of the confusion over what the meaning of is is. You could be in trouble when you are parsing this hard.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#22)
    by mpower1952 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Jim- You still don't get it. The 'and' was implied. It's the only way the statement makes sense. He was saying that the Bush people wanted to use WMD and terrorism to justify taking out Saddam, BUT they were making the facts fit their already decided upon policy (It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.) instead of using the facts and intelligence to decide upon a policy.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    The proof is far simpler than any individual memo. The proof lies in the fact that our nation spent 160 Billion dollars on this war. For humanitarian purposes...yeah right. Besides, the burden was on Bush and the Republicans (and apologists like you) to prove that there was an imminent threat making war necessary. You and your brethren failed miserably in that regard. But since Corporate power has proven that it can do whatever the hell it wants to do any old time lately, there is no accountability to the public - not even come election time. They sold you the war, and you paid for it with your right to review the evidence by making excuses for the D.C. rubber stamp club.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#24)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    mpower1592 - Well, it is nice of you to say what the author was saying. Pity he didn't take opportunity to say what you want him to have said. TS - How many times must you be told that Bush never said there was an imminent threat? In fact, he said the opposite. In his 2003 SOTU speech he makes the point that we could not afford to wait for a threat to become imminent, because, at that point, it is too late. Thus he established his pre-emptive strike strategy.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    TS - How many times must you be told that Bush never said there was an imminent threat? In fact, he said the opposite. In his 2003 SOTU speech he makes the point that we could not afford to wait for a threat to become imminent, because, at that point, it is too late. Thus he established his pre-emptive strike strategy.
    OK spin your way out of these... “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” —President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003 “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” —Vice President Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002 “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” —President George W. Bush, Weekly Radio Address, February 8, 2003 “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” —Vice President Dick Cheney, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” March 16, 2003

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    The Canadians made them do it, right Jim?

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#27)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Ernesto - You make Bush's case. He thought Saddam had the weapons, and wanted to act to prevent Saddam from either using them himself, or giving them to terrorists. imminent: "ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head i.e. If Iran has a nuke, we are in danger. If Iran has a nuke in a ship in NY harbor, we are in imminent danger. You really should read the speech.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#28)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    PJJ, re the Downing Street memo:
    It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.
    You say that "the case was thin" refers to quantity not quality. "This was the accepted view by US and other major intelligence agencies." By "quantity" I assume you mean that there wasn't alot of evidence to support the case for going to war. When you consider that we are talking about sending our servicemen into harms way, that in itself is pretty damning. However, where is the evidence that this didn't refer to quality. Take for example, the source of the mobile weapons claim, Curveball. The Germans, who had custody of Curveball, warned the Bush administration long before the invasion and Powell's UN presentation that they had problems with the credibility of his evidence. Within the CIA there were also doubts about the evidence. Regarding your interpretation of the facts, I'm afraid "the case is thin".

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    i.e. If Iran has a nuke, we are in danger. If Iran has a nuke in a ship in NY harbor, we are in imminent danger. You really should read the speech.
    I read it and I didn't see anything about Iranian nukes in New York harbor. But I guess we can look forward to that one in upcoming Bush/Cheney speeches.
    imminent: "ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head
    OK...these two sound like they meet your definition of imminent: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” —Vice President Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002 “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” —President George W. Bush, Weekly Radio Address, February 8, 2003

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    John H - Remember how as* u me is spelled. ;-) No, I refer to there not being a lot of intelligence. Little to no actual people, etc. You keep coming back to the Germans and Curveball. The fact is, could the administration ignore what "was" just because the German's weren't completelyconvinced? If you see a accumlation of evidence, even if no one single piece is undoubtable, how can you ignore it? Remember. The decision was about protecting the country, not some dry excercise in law. On this Memorial Day you should remember the first Battle of Midway. The US Navy, based on scant intelligence and some small bits of information launched what was left of there fleet from Peral harbor to intercept the Japanese. Had their information been wrong, or if the US forces failed to find the Japanese and had to return to Hawaii only to find the Japanese between them and Peral Harbor, it would have been a disaster, and we probably would have been forced to sue for peace as we had lost the Pacific. Sometimes you have to go with your best effort.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    You keep coming back to the Germans and Curveball.
    Hey I wonder if "Curveball" was Chalabi? Well, he's the Oil Minister now so it looks like the story has a happy ending. Or not.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    nothing but lies, PPJ

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    The Midway operation was hardly based on scant intelligence Jim. We had broken their naval code JN-25,well in advance. We had confirmed the objective (Midway= Area AF) by sending false information to be transmitted from Midway (regarding a broken Fresh Water Condenser), which was later heard being echoed by Japanese stations. About the only "guesswork" involved was the exact position the Japanese fleet would take up near Midway (it ended up being about what the analysts believed, approx. 250 miles NE of Midway). In the intel biz, pretty much an open-and shut case. Your analogy of this to the profound intelligence failures that led to the Iraq debacle, is specious at best. It was the Bush admins' best effort though. A best effort to spin the intel to fit the policy they had already established. At least according to our British Allies and that memo you keep parsing harder than a Clinton "is". ;)

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#34)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    PPJ, re: "No, I refer to there not being a lot of intelligence. Little to no actual people, etc...If you see a accumlation of evidence, even if no one single piece is undoubtable, how can you ignore it?" So what you are saying is that there was little evidence to support the case for going to war and some of that evidence was questionable. In other words, the "case was thin". Poor analysis usually leads to poor planning and disastrous results in implementation. There are times you need to proceed even though you have inadequate intelligence, but this wasn't one of them. We weren't in any imminent danger. As the Downing Street memo demonstrates the Bush administration took our country into a war even though they were aware that the "case was thin." No American should ever be sent to war for light and transient reasons. That over 1600 Americans have died in Iraq is not only a waste of lives but a betrayal of our values.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#35)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Adept - It was still a huge gamble based on scant information. i.e. What if Japan, knowing that we had broken their code, was sending information to draw us into a trap? Conventional wisdom said we should lay low and play defense. We gambled and fought. Even then we could have lost the battle due to the superior numbers and training of the Japanese. BTW - Nothing is harder than parsing the meaning of "is." John H - The comment didn't say, the "case was thin," so don't try and rewrite history when we aren't looking! Ernesto - And the Germans, we now know with perefect 20-20 hindsight, were correct. Your point is? TS - You can condemn Bush forever, but on such basic things as "imminent" you should really get your facts straight. After all, that was one of the tenets of preemption. If you do not, reasonable people will have a tendancy to ignore you.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Ernesto - And the Germans, we now know with perefect 20-20 hindsight, were correct. Your point is?
    I didn't say anything about the Germans, actually. I was wondering if our on again/off again buddy Chalibi was "Curveball". And my point is that it shouldn't be surprising that the Neocons were so trusting of a convicted embezzler. Birds of a feather...
    TS - You can condemn Bush forever, but on such basic things as "imminent" you should really get your facts straight. After all, that was one of the tenets of preemption.
    So if Saddam had WMD he could have used them against us in late 2002/early 2003 because our bullsh*t made it apparent that an invasion of Iraq was imminent?

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    "It was still a huge gamble based on scant information." Scant information. Right. Sure, I suppose they might have been worried about the Japanese knowing we broke their code, if it were not for the fact we used this same code a few days earlier in the Coral Islands campaign. I'm pretty sure the code-breakers complete confidence (and Nimitz's) came from the fact that the Japanese would have had to have purposefully thrown away several valuable fleet units (including two carriers) just to maintain the illusion. Three years before Kamikazes, this was seen as highly unlikely by the naval staff. Nimitz was far too smart to risk his only Carriers on a "slim" chance, unless he knew his information was solid, as I showed previously. In reply, all you can come up with is a vague allegation. Perhaps you should study up on the good admiral, it'll keep you from making obvious blunders like that. For starters, try Nimitz by E.B. Potter. Your analogy between Midway and Iraq still remains, at best, highly specious. Then again, perhaps I should not attribute this weakness of argument to malevalance when it is more easily explained by ignorance. BTW- Your parsing over the British memo has rivalled the best parsings f "is" by rabid Clintonites, which is why I seldom take wingnuts of either stripe too seriously.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#38)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    PPJ, What are you talking about? I quoted directly from the Downing Street Memo written by Matthew Rycroft. See the fourth paragraph:
    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran...
    Not being an apologist for Bush means never having to rewrite anything.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    The US is planning a war with Iraq. Everyone knew that. Grand all knowing poobah But for the sake of our freedom, for the sake of our future, if nothing happens, the United States will lead a coalition to hold him to account and to disarm Saddam Hussein. We owe it to the world to do so." Monkey boy Speech in AZ 9/28/2002 Why in 2002 does Monkey Boy say IF? Indeed if the war plan was already decided, he should have told the american people WHEN. In the Fall of 2002 Bush NEVER referred to the inevitability of the Iraq invasion. He always held it out as a "last resort". That was not the truth. In fact, his mind was already made up. But he NEVER, EVER conveyed to the populace his decision to invade had already been made. Jim, you are such a lair. Your manipulation of facts and history is so pathologically twisted that you are more of a danger to our country than almaost any terrorist could hope to be.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Che - agree with your conclusion 100%

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#41)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Adept - Ignorance? My comment was, and is, sometimes you must go with what you know. There was risk written all over deciding to fight the Japanese then and there. You are using 20-20 hindsight, typical for Iraqi war haters. Which is why I don't take them too seriously. John H - "Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Still looks like quantity to me. It speaks to actions. And we get the WMD capability brought in, even if qualified, it shows the Brits and the US both thought it real. Ernesto - In Bush's speech he refers explicity to that issue. Read it. et al - We have covered the universe, but the fact remains that the Left wants to use this memo as proof that Bush was lying about intelligence. This memo says that Bush had made up his mind, something that appears reasonable when looking back and understanding what, at that time, he did, and did not, know. However, that little word, "But," won't go away. It sticks like a like a lump of beef in a sour stomach, ruining the dinner of the war and Bush haters. Alas, alas. If he had only said, "and."

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Ernesto - In Bush's speech he refers explicity to that issue. Read it.
    I read it...what are you talking about? Post the excerpt of the speech that refers to that issue, please.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    I guess you're the only voice of reason here, eh PPJ.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    High crimes and misdemeanors. I think this is the worst president of my lifetime and I remember Nixon vividly.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
    I guess by Jan. 2003 our bumbling hero still hadn't read the August 6, 2001 memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S."?
    If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
    Well think about it...all you have to do is substitute "Saddam Hussein" with "George Bush" in the above quote and presto...any country can attack the United States in order to prevent what happened to Iraq from happening to them. North Korea or China could launch nukes on the assumption that the U.S. is a threat to them. That is what pre-emptive strategy means and who is the biggest threat in the world as far as invading and occupying these days?

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#45)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    TS - Nope. And I have never claimed to be. But everynow and then, only God knows why, I will make an effort to point out something that is well known to be true to someone such as you. In the meantime, keep denying it. Ernesto - You're kidding, right? Oh well, for the slower ones.. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Insult and diatribe against another commenter deleted. Soccerdad, you're pushing the limits. Stop the attacks.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#47)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    SD - Before you call someone a liar, it would be in your best interest to read the source of what he has quoted. 2003 STOTU [remainder deleted]

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    I must commend PPJ on his buck-n-wing dance here. I'll have to bookmark this thread so that newcomers to TL can see his fabulous "B.S. detector" at work, whenever he gets this inevitable bragging about what is really a generator. It's always amusing how PPJ comes up with new ways to defend the malAdministration so that "they're always right!" no matter what. Kinda like listening to Radio Moscow broadcasts in the mid-70s, just substitute Bush for Breznev in the role of Fearless Leader who can do no wrong and is leading us to a brighter, freer tomorrow. LOL!

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Eli Stephens: "No offense, but we didn't need "new evidence" to tell us this," Yeah, Eli, but Worker's World isn't the British Government. It's a key distinction. Same goes for Tampa's comment about the cost. These are obvious, but argumentative, complaints. The Blair cabinet briefing minutes, on the other hand, and Jim's idiotic minimalization aside, a smoking gun that IS the seed of the actual impeachment crisis. Fight that fight, don't indulge in your emotions about how obvious the truth is. We need to grow this seed, not minimalize it in favor of a demand for a broader description. Evidence of conspiracy with foreign nations, evidence of lying to Congress and the public -- those are PLENTY to start the ball rolling. We don't need to try and convict capitalism in order to use this crucial evidence In the effort to try and convict the Iraq War Conspiracy Planners.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Best of luck getting that "smoking gun" in front of American voters come next election. If you do, will they care? You're playing tricks with the smoke and mirrors handed to you by the Corporate Media and expecting people whose values have been shaped by lies to be captivated by it. What kind of reasoning, in your mind, is it that leads you to believe that some obscure memo could impact our society in a manner that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos apparently failed to do? You can't build a record of overwhelming evidence if the court reporter preparing the record for the jury is a paid ally of your opponent. Besides, the Democratic Party couldn't trigger a Clinton-esque investigation of 2002 misdeeds even if they had the will to do so. Argumentative, eh? Sorry, I hope I didn't turn off too many of those Conservative swing voters I keep hearing will help us improve society. I must've fell out of my sedan chair.

    Re: Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    Sorry but this is old news. I remember reading at least two years ago that long before Cheney essentially declared was in Aug. 2002 that we had already stepped up bombing of air-defense and other installations in Iraq, partly in prep for war and partly to goad them into trying to shoot down our planes. If I'm not mistaken, it may even have been mentioned in Bob Woodward's book. In any case, old -- though still maddening -- news.

    Report: U.S. and U.K. Goaded Iraq Into War | 52 comments (52 topical)